I've read a lot of reviews on this lens. Without exception, the "Olympus visionaries" sing the praises of this lens. It must be perfect. Everybody else, however, complains of terrible chromatic aberration in high contrast areas, bad enough that software won't remove it. Any comments on the purple fringing? Since you're primarily an outdoor photographer, you must have run into high contrast situations. I also note that you mention using this lens with focus bracketing. It's a shame that it doesn't work with focus stacking, since it is designated a "pro" lens. It has been on the market now for a couple of years, so I don't expect a firmware update to address this. It must be an issue with the focus motor. Any thoughts on this?
20mm in portrait orientation makes a nice size for panorama 20mm Better than 25mm Because it gives you room to crop If you want to get in tight git 45mm f/1.2 or f1.8
Excellent commentary on this lens. But now as Christmas ensues, I am in a quandary in what to surprise myself in the form of a new Olympus lens, this 20mm or the 17mm F 1.2. Both stellar lens. Any thoughts? Thank you.
Ernst, Great to hear from you and great question. The 35mm equivalent is 34mm vs 40mm. For me that is not a super big deal. The 17 is one stop quicker. So if you are thinking about using it for astro photography, I would lean towards the 17. The one thing that may be important is that the 20mm does not have the manual clutch function. I don't find that to be a huge issue. But for some folks it is. The two other differentials are the weight and price. The weight for the 17 is 390 grams vs. the 20 which is 247 grams and the price is $1,149 vs. $799. I hope this helps. Have a Happy New Year and please keep in touch. Frank
Hi, I currently have a pen-f that I love and 2 objectives sigma 30mm 1,4 and the 45mm 1,8 olympus. As a budget I have 1300/1700 Euros and I am looking for one or 2 "definitive" objectives for the meantime (later you will see) that are capable of doing different types of photography ranging from weddings such as portraits even in low light, football matches mainly during the day and occasional landscapes.I am looking for objectives that are unique as compactness, performance and versatility compared to all systems photographic (apsc, full, frame etc ...) if I stay in the micro 4/3 I'm interested and I don't see real alternatives to the Om system / olympus 8-25mm, 12-100mm, 20mm 1,4 and last probably also Om lenses 40-150mm f4 or sigma 56mm 1,4. I am confused because if the 20mm 1,4 can replace my sigma 30mm in all ways, even as a bokeh, I would take it with my eyes closed. 12-100mm and these would also be useful for taking medium and long distance portraits of the spouses.If I really have to keep my pen-f with a single lens I would think of the 20mm or 15mm leica or the announced 9mm leica 1.7 ... or also have a second no micro 4/3 body with other lenses also used? Thanks.
Olympus do make great glass however OM have recently been using Sigma to design their new lenses. Sigma make great glass too and was one of the original MFT Consortium. It will have to go some to displace the Leica 25mm though with its 3D look and clarity. The Leica comes absolutely on-song at f/2 And then there's there's the problem with any Olympus or Sigma lens in that they will not and cannot use the faster and more accurate DFD on a Lumix. Yes DFD is quicker than PDAF and both use CDAF to finalise because it is most accurate. In poor light PDAF drops out and it is CDAF-only. Most Lumix, Olympus and Sigma mft lenses will use all focus functions including the "Quick AF Operation" (the Ollie 75mm does) but DFD requires a "DFD Compatible" lookup table in the lens firmware; they have a tendency to hunt without it. PDAF always produces two focus solutions and does not know which way to move, so CDAF has to be used; DFD knows which way to go and how far.
Interesting review of an interesting focal length, many thanks. Some seem to find the 40mm equivalent a strange choice, but it was very popular at one time - see the old Olympus Trip 35 and similar. Regarding size and 'balance', were you using it on an EM-5?
@@ftaylorsmith Thanks for the reply. I realised that you were using the EM-1 - I did watch til the end ;-) - but there is a pic at 4.53 with the lens on what looks like a smaller OM-D.
I've got two of those. An old lens, a very early mft. It will not AFC/AFF on a Lumix. It has very accurate and fine focus but slow. Which makes it stills only with no fancy functions. Very handy pancake though with great glass; if we delve deep into the exif we find it is an unbadged Leica.
